Chamber and committees

The debate has been helpful and I am grateful to members for their contributions. I want to address a number of the points that have been raised, and I will cover a number of substantive issues.

First, I want to talk about the issues around timing and the timetable. Members have raised those as a substantial part of the debate. The argument has, roughly, focused on the fact that consultation could have taken place over the summer and the bill could have been considered in September.

Aside from the fact that I am sceptical as to whether Parliament could consider the bill in September and secure royal assent before the end of the month, the implication of the suggested timetable is, in essence, that we would have a curtailed process of scrutiny in any circumstance. That is a product of the presence of two things—the election and the summer recess. The Government, through me, has made a choice to bring the legislation to Parliament at this stage, because that is true under whatever scenario we adopt.

The reliable scenario, guaranteeing that we can secure royal assent provided that Parliament agrees to the terms of the legislation, is to complete the process now rather than to risk delaying it until September. That would, as John Mason highlighted, leave a note of uncertainty in the minds of a whole range of organisations as to whether they would still be able to operate in the fashion in which they currently have to because of Covid in exercising their practical functions as organisations.

I do not agree with Mr Kerr that this is a power grab for ministers. It is about enabling a range of organisations to undertake a series of practical functions that have been disrupted by the presence of Covid. Let us take the courts as an example. Nobody can say anything other than that they have been disrupted by Covid, which has led to delays. We have put in place practical arrangements to make it possible for trials to happen and to sustain the criminal justice system through the disruption of Covid. That has not gone away. It is still there and we are wrestling with its implications.

No—that is not the reason, in any respect. This is an extension and expiry bill on existing provisions for which Parliament has already legislated. I have made it clear that the Government will consult on what we are referring to as a permanence bill, which will look at longer-term issues. The Parliament has already looked at all these questions and has considered how the statute book should be amended to handle the impact of the pandemic. I am simply introducing—

If Jackie Baillie will forgive me, I will continue for a moment.

I am simply introducing a bill that either extends or expires conclusions on which the Parliament has already decided. There will in due course be scope for the Parliament to legislate on other issues that it considers to be appropriate, but there is no scope for that in the context of this narrowly defined bill.

I wish that we were not in the situation in which I am required to introduce legislation to extend the temporary measures to respond to the pandemic, but I am pleased to present the bill and to set out its general principles. Before I turn to the principles of the bill, I will set out the reasons for the timing of its introduction and passage.

As members will understand, the path of the pandemic has been unpredictable and, in response, we have needed to take action to tackle the public health threat that it has created. Part of our response was to introduce temporary measures through the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020. The temporary measures in those acts will expire on 30 September 2021. Given the pre-election period and upcoming summer recess, it is necessary that the bill complete its passage before recess in order to ensure that a number of the measures that we consider to be essential can continue beyond that date.

I appreciate that that means that there is limited time to consider the content of the bill, but I reassure members that the primary purpose of the bill is to extend measures only temporarily. The bill does not introduce any new provisions, it does not modify or amend any of the temporary measures that are already in place and—I say to be crystal clear—it does not relate either to international travel or to regulations that impose restrictions on our day-to-day activities.

Progressing a bill under the emergency procedure is never a decision that the Government takes lightly. However, passing the bill this month will not only take account of the time that is needed for it to come into effect but will, crucially, give public services and people in Scotland more time to plan for what the extension or expiry of measures will mean for them.

It is, quite understandably and appropriately, for the Presiding Officer to determine the scope of the bill and admissibility of amendments, but I consider it very unlikely that it will be possible to amend the bill to add new or amended temporary measures. I appreciate that that might be frustrating for members who wish to introduce new topics, but it is not the appropriate bill for that purpose. The place for that will be in the coming months, when there will be an opportunity to consider fully what further legislative changes might be required.

As Jackie Baillie knows, the Government continues to keep business support under review. The First Minister will make a statement in a few moments’ time that will set out some further developments in relation to the wider context and the strategic framework for the handling of the coronavirus. Some of the issues that Jackie Baillie raises will be addressed in the First Minister’s statement, so I will not pre-empt that.

However, the Government has put in place a range of different supports for tourism businesses, as with many other businesses, to take people through these difficult times. We will continue to ensure that we address any issues that are raised by individual sectors to our greatest ability with the financial scope that we have at our disposal.

All that I would say to Mr Ross is that I hear what he has said. The Presiding Officer has made her remarks. We will, of course, reflect very carefully on the points that she has raised. Government-initiated questions are frequently lodged on sitting days on many issues in relation to Covid.

We will reflect on what the Presiding Officer has said in order to make sure that we properly advise Parliament of changes. However, I say to Mr Ross again that Government-initiated questions are an acceptable means—accepted by the Presiding Officer—of the Government notifying Parliament of particular developments. We have followed that route, but we will of course reflect on the points that the Presiding Officer has raised this afternoon.

It is necessary for the arguments that I am setting out. A range of public services have experienced disruption as a consequence of Covid, and some of them would not be able to exercise their functions consistent with existing statute if we had not amended statute in the fashion that we already have done and which I am arguing to Parliament should be sustained. Without that, some organisations and some public functions would not be able to be exercised, and that would be detrimental to the exercise of the proper functions of public services.

That has been the Conservative Party’s argument about why we should not legislate in the fashion in which we are. I am grateful to the Labour Party, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats for their support for the principle of legislating in that context.

A number of what I consider to be absolutely legitimate and substantial issues that relate to how we recover from the Covid emergency have emerged from the contributions of several colleagues. Mr Griffin raised eviction issues, Pam Duncan-Glancy raised similar issues, and Mr Harvie raised points on these questions. Those are all legitimate questions, and there were substantial issues in the points that Mr Harvie raised about the way in which we plan and execute our recovery from Covid. Some of that will be about legislative change and strengthening rights, and some of it will be about the policy intentions of Government. Mr Harvie and his colleagues and I are, of course, engaged in conversations about some of those questions, just as we are engaged with all parties in Parliament.

There is a big agenda to be taken forward there. I contend that, given the pressure that we have in relation to the provisions, which I think need to be in place on 1 October 2021—whether we legislate for them now or in the first week in September, as the Conservatives seem to want to us to do—even that opportunity would not provide us with the scope to address the substantive issues that have been raised about legislating for, and acting to take forward, the Covid recovery.

I am committed to engagement in that discussion with other parties, to ensure that we plan our recovery from Covid and carry out the plan in a way that has a meaningful impact on the lives of individuals in Scotland and tackles the fundamental inequalities that, as Mr Harvie was correct to say, existed before Covid but have been emphasised and highlighted by the effects of Covid.

The Government is committed to that, which is why we are taking the time in summer to properly consult on the permanence bill and wider questions about how we plan our response.

During the bill’s passage, there will of course be an opportunity for members of Parliament to make points and advance the propositions that they want to advance. Decisions about the selection of amendments will be for the Presiding Officer, and the Government will respond to all issues timeously, within the structure of the debate.

There is a fundamental point. As we look at the issues and wrestle with the question whether it is appropriate to legislate in this context, we need to draw on the contribution that Siobhian Brown made to the debate when she recounted the story of her constituent in Ayr who lost his life, and the impact that that had on his family. Covid has not left us and, although we heard a more optimistic statement today from the First Minister, it still has significant implications in our society, which are disrupting the way in which we can operate public services.

What the Government is trying to do with the bill is take an orderly approach to dispensing with the provisions for which the Parliament legislated that we do not think are necessary—obviously, members of Parliament are free to challenge our judgment if they think that we have got it wrong when we argue for the removal of certain provisions. Equally, we are trying to take an orderly approach to determining whether there is legitimate justification for extending provisions that we think should be extended—and I contend that those provisions are necessary to address the continuing impact of Covid on our ability to exercise the public functions that are agreed in statute, in a way that is sustainable in the continuing scenario that we face.

Something that has been unhelpful in the debate has been the conflation of the bill with issues to do with the limitations on personal freedoms, which I totally understand are causing concern. Those issues are not the subject of this bill; they are the products of other legislative instruments, which constrain individual liberties and personal freedoms. As the First Minister said this afternoon, we hope to be able to relax many of those provisions by 19 July or 9 August.

However, as Clare Adamson said, even after 9 August, there will still be an emphasis on the need to exercise caution, because of the threat that the pandemic will still present to us all. The bill is an attempt—this point was reflected in comments that John Mason, Jackie Baillie and Stuart McMillan made—to make a proportionate assessment of the situation that we face and take the necessary powers and responsibilities to enable us to continue to properly exercise the public functions that are at stake.

It relates to the point that I made in response to Mr Mason’s arguments. By passing this legislation now, we are trying to give some operational certainty to organisations about the arrangements that will potentially be in place in September.

Of course, Presiding Officer.

In that respect, if we do this task, it will leave us free to consult on the substantive issues to do with Covid recovery that are the subject of the extensive engagement that I am taking forward and on which I look forward to working with colleagues. We will consider all the issues that relate to the bill in the course of this week, with the support of the Parliament at decision time this evening.

In response to my colleague Gillian Martin, Annie Wells advanced the argument that she would want to see protection in place for tenants should they face eviction. However, she then said that we should delay the legislation until September. If there was not enough time by 30 September to secure the parliamentary passage of and royal assent to the legislation, how would tenants be protected?